polynodes_cuboid_switch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: 'Returns: JSON confirmation' is redundant because an output schema exists, and it says nothing about persistence, audio-routing side effects, or what an off state does to in-flight playback. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The operative sentence is front-loaded and the whole description is only a few lines. The Args/Returns blocks duplicate the schema and output schema respectively, which is mild padding but keeps it scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it. The only omission is any note on the cuboid's effect context, which is not strictly required to call the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (cube, state) are fully documented in the schema, including the 0.0/1.0 mapping. The description merely repeats those definitions verbatim, adding no syntax, defaulting, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Turn a cuboid (C1/C2/C3) on or off') and enumerates the valid targets, so it is immediately distinguishable from the many other *_switch siblings that act on different effects (granular, filter, comb, blackhole, etc.). No ambiguity about what is being toggled.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the toggle semantics and the per-cuboid scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of an alternative when a different cuboid index or effect is wanted. Adequate for a trivial toggle, but nothing is spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.